Real-Time Court Decisions and Other Developments in Asbestos Litigation.
Jurisdiction: Supreme Court of New York, Appellate Division, First Department The Supreme Court of New York, New York County, on March 13, 2024, dismissed defendant Long Island Lighting Company from an asbestos action, finding that plaintiffs’ claims related to a mesothelioma diagnosis were barred by a prior settlement agreement and general release. Plaintiffs Lilian McLaughlin … Continued
The settle-and-sue legal malpractice claim has been traditionally disfavored by courts across the country. Courts often cite to practical and legal concerns with the theory, to say nothing of the bind it puts on an attorney looking to resolve a case. In a recent decision from the New Jersey Appellate Division, settle-and-sue may not have been at issue, but that in itself causes some concern in a case remanded for trial to determine the difference between a verdict and what the plaintiff settled for prior to trial.
The Ohio Board of Professional Conduct recently issued an advisory opinion concerning restrictions on an attorney’s right to practice and solicit clients contained within settlement agreements. Of course, an effective settlement agreement attempts to eliminate all claims involving the settling parties. The goal is to put an end to the dispute, forever. But, what happens when a settlement agreement expressly prohibits the settling parties’ counsel from pursuing similar claims through other clients?
It is no secret that parties more often settle than proceed through trial. While courts roundly applaud this as beneficial to both the system and litigants, it sometimes generates second guessing from the clients. As Larry David put it, “a good compromise is when both parties are dissatisfied.” It is therefore no surprise that many legal malpractice claims follow from settlements, despite the general principle that the settlement itself precludes such a suit. In a recent decision from the New Jersey Appellate Division, the court’s discussion of when this principle applies does little to pacify concerns of attorneys that their clients will settle and sue. Even well documented settlement agreements, and testimony reflecting a voluntary resolution, still can be undone via a malpractice complaint.
It is a risk management necessity that professionals document their files appropriately and confirm conversations in writing. A recent NY decision goes further, and suggests that it may be wise to save original documents to reduce the likelihood of a spoliation argument. In that decision, the Appellate Division, Second Department of New York considered whether a former client was entitled to evaluate an original document to determine whether her fingerprints were on a settlement offer.
Facebook strikes again! Just ask a settling plaintiff who learned that his negotiated settlement payment was deemed void as a result of his daughter’s Facebook post. According to a recent decision out of Miami, an $80,000 payment was presumptively waived as a result of a post from the plaintiff’s daughter broadcasting the “victory” due to a confidentiality clause within the settlement agreement. This is just another example of the serious consequences of inadvertent disclosure of confidential information and the risks of social media.
Litigation is big business with big dollar signs. As a result of the large awards that can result from malpractice suits, many professionals, their attorneys, and insurers are interested in early settlement discussions. When considering settlement, the defense team must balance “right and wrong,” pride, defense costs, and other complicated factors that are difficult to quantify. For the professional, the decision may be more about reputation and morals than budgets. As a result, insureds may not always want to follow their insurer’s inclination to settle. Enter the “hammer clause.”
Mediation is intended to facilitate the expeditious resolution of disputes. Often, mediation offers the ideal setting to promote productive conversation and settlement discussions. Skilled mediators know the right buttons to press, highlight strengths and weaknesses, and allow the parties an opportunity to “be heard,” all of which can go a long way toward settling a dispute. But, mediation does not always go as intended particularly when the terms of a proposed agreement are not documented.